1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles.

At around 02:40 on July 26, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle reduced the sudden speed from the two-lanes of the upper parallel line near the coastwise Highway in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and collisioned with the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the said reduction.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident led to the loss of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and on September 3, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,2250,000 insurance money to the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition: Descriptions and images of Evidence A1 to 5, Evidence B (including paper numbers) 2]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the main mistake of the driver of the defendant vehicle who stopped on an expressway under the influence of alcohol. Since the negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle is 80%, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay 9.8 million won, which is 80% of the insurance money, to the plaintiff, while the defendant asserts that the driver of the vehicle who did not drive on the road in front and that the driver of the vehicle who did not drive on the road was more negligent.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the above facts and the evidence as above, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who drives the vehicle with blood alcohol concentration of 0.160%, and without justifiable grounds, committed an act of rapidly lowering the speed on the expressway without justifiable grounds; the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, who neglected the front-time city, thereby failing to find out that the Defendant vehicle would reduce the speed; or if the front-time vehicle reduce the speed, it appears that the front-time vehicle might show a shock of the front-round vehicle due to a mistake that did not keep a safety distance to avoid the collision if it reduces the speed. The instant accident occurred by the concurrence of the two parties’ negligence.

The time, cause, and circumstance of the accident in this case, and road conditions, respectively.